Você está na página 1de 81

EVALUATION OF ABOVE-GROUND POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS FOR ASSESSING PIPELINE INTEGRITY

By JAMES PATRICK MCKINNEY

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Mark Orazem, for his support, guidance, and his belief in me. He has shown me not only how to improve my abilities in research, but also how to improve my abilities as a person. I would like to thank Dr. Oliver Moghissi of CC Technologies and Daphne DZurko of Northeast Gas Association for sponsoring this project. I appreciate Dr. Moghissis willingness to work closely with me on this project. He beneted not only the project, but also my abilities and understanding regarding both the fundamentals of the project and corrosion engineering in general. I would like to thank Dr. Douglas Riemer for oering technical support needed for running CP3D simulations. I would also like to thank everyone in my research group for their daily and continuous support. This includes Nelliann Perez-Garcia, Mei-Wen Huang, Michael Matlock, Sunil Roy, and Chia Chu, who has worked closely with me on this project. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, my sister, and my brother for their love and support throughout my life. I appreciate them instilling the value of education in me at an early age.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 2 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 2.3 External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) . . . . Corrosion Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cathodic Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Principles of CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Inspection Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . Above-Ground Measurement (Indirect) Techniques . . 2.5.1 Close Interval Survey (CIS) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) . . . 2.5.3 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) 2.5.4 Current Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 5 9 9 11 15 17 17 20 23 24 26 26 27 30 31 32 33 33 34 39 39 40 40 ii v vi ix

2.4 2.5

CP3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2 Description of CP3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mathematical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Bare Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Coated Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Sacricial and Impressed Current Anodes Replication of Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 CIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 DCVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 ACVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Current Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . CP3D settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Matrix of Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3

3.4

iii

RESULTS AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.2 4.3 Current and Potential Distributions Trends from Simulation Results . . Flaw Size Predictors . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 CIS Predictor . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 DCVG Predictor . . . . . . . in the Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 42 48 57 57 63 65 65 66 68 71

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 31 The matrix of model runs showing the ranges of dierent parameters that were varied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Three simulations dierent only in CP level. Parameters are 12in Dp, 4ft DOC, and 0.5 kohm-cm (soil resistivity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 41 58

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 21 A CP system with a sacricial anode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A CP system with impressed current. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A representation of on- and o-potential proles which show how CIS dips are categorized. Each data point represents a measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 The percent-IR calculation is shown using the lateral voltage gradients with the interpolated value of IR drop over the coating aw. . 25 A diagram showing how an IR measurement is interpolated at the ground surface above the coating aw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 An image from CP3D showing the physical orientation of the soil surface with respect to the pipeline. The darker area on the pipeline represents the coating aw or holiday. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 12 14

19 22 23

27

32 A prole of on- and o-potentials from CP3D simulation data where the dip indicates the location of the coating aw. Each data point represents a measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline. 34 33 A schematic of how CIS indication is calculated using the nodes of the soil surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 A schematic of how DCVG measurements are made using CP3D. . . 35 35 36 38

35 A prole of DCVG measurements above the pipeline. The peak value represents the overall DCVG indication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A schematic of how percent-IR is measured and calculated. . . . . . . 37 A prole of IR drops in the perpendicular direction to the pipeline. The IR drops are all at the same lengthwise position as the coating aw in respect to the pipeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

41 A plot of current density as it changes along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp 43 42 An angular plot of current density at the location of the coating aw. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp 44

vi

43 A plot of soil surface on-potentials as they change along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A plot of steel voltage as it changes along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp 45 Current distribution along the pipeline is shown for changing soil resistivities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode voltage: 5V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode voltage: 5V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as CP level is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus aw size as CP level is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 46 47

49

50

51

52

410 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as DOC is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, CP level: high 52 411 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as Dp is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, DOC: 4in, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 CIS on-potential dip indication is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 CIS o-potential dip indication is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 A prole of soil surface on- and o-potentials from a simulated CIS survey. Simulation parameters are aw size: 36 in2 , Rs: 500ohmcm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

54

55

56

56

vii

416 A representation of soil surface on-potential proles taken along the length of the pipeline. The anode voltage is held constant for each simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Current attenuation in mA is plotted against aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 Current attenuation in percent is plotted against aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

58

59

419 A plot of CIS indications versus aw size from simulation data. CIS indication is the dierence in the on-potential dip and the o-potential dip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 420 A prole of general behavior of on- and o-potentials along the centerline at the soil surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

421 A plot of CIS indication divided by IR total versus the square root of the aw size. The denition of IR total is illustrated in Figure (4-20). 61 422 An exponential plot of slope versus soil resistivity. Data was at a depth of cover of 4ft and a pipe diameter of 6 inches. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 423 A plot of pre-exponential factors versus the corresponding depth of cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 Actual aw size is plotted versus predicted aw size for each simulation using the derived expression for m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 Actual aw size is plotted versus predicted aw size for each simulation using DCVG indications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 63 64

viii

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF ABOVE-GROUND POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS FOR ASSESSING PIPELINE INTEGRITY By James Patrick McKinney May 2006 Chair: Mark E. Orazem Major Department: Chemical Engineering Indirect techniques based on currents and potentials measured at the soil surface can be used to evaluate the condition of buried pipelines. These techniques are the foundation of External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) protocols. A quantitative relationship between ECDA signals and the presence of coating defects or aws has not previously been established. Such a relationship is anticipated to be dependent on parameters such as soil resistivity and the condition of the defect-free coating. The objective of this work was to simulate the sensitivity to the pipe coating condition of above-ground ECDA techniques. This project made use of a mathematical model CP3D which was developed at the University of Florida to simulate the operation of a cathodic protection system for mitigating corrosion of buried pipelines. This program allows for the creation of a visualized three-dimensional environment. It was developed as a tool to help improve the ability to assess the condition of underground pipelines. It takes into account a wide variety of dierent parameters such as pipeline diameter, depth of cover, soil resistivity, coating aw (holiday) size, coating condition, level of cathodic protection, and polarization ix

resistance. A matrix of simulation runs has been completed within which each of these parameters was varied. Above-ground ECDA procedures were simulated using results from the model. The model generates results that include current and voltage distributions along the pipeline as well as the on- and o-potentials calculated at locations on the ground surface above the pipeline. The ECDA techniques or tools that are performed include Close Interval Survey (CIS), Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG), Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG), and Current Attenuation. Results from these techniques show that soil and coating parameters are signicant. Currently engineers use subjective judgment based on ECDA indication results measured. However, these results can be signicantly skewed based on changes in these parameters which can aect the interpretation of results.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) is a method to prioritize susceptibility to corrosion along a pipeline segment. If the most susceptible locations are excavated and directly examined and then found to be in good mechanical condition, the remaining locations are also considered to be in good condition. On this basis, an overall pipeline integrity assessment is achieved. This work shows that the results of measurement techniques are sensitive to various pipeline parameters and soil conditions such as soil resistivity, coating aw size, depth of cover, pipe diameter, and cathodic protection (CP) level through use of the simulation software program called CP3D. From an entire spreadsheet of simulation results, a design equation was developed to predict coating aw size based on these parameters and the indication results from simulated measurement techniques. The above-ground measurement techniques are one way to assess the condition of pipelines since they can measure current and potential distributions. ECDA is a recently developed process that has been implemented to improve the utilization of these techniques. However, this process relies heavily on the subjective decisions of engineers. The objective of this work is to show that increased knowledge of the parameters of pipelines and their surrounding environment improves the ability to interpret results from the dierent above-ground measurement techniques. Currently, not enough information about pipelines and their environments are included in assessments and these factors can lead to misinterpretation of indications. This document is divided into ve chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the history and basic principles of corrosion and how cathodic protection systems work. Also 1

2 included is explanation of how the dierent above-ground measurement techniques are used to assess pipeline integrity and how they are utilized by ECDA. In Chapter 3, CP3D is introduced as the simulation software program used to replicate the techniques. It explains how CP3D works and what it oers. Discussion of the governing equations used for the mathematical model is also included. Explanation is then given of how each technique is replicated within CP3D. Chapter 4 gives results from each of the dierent techniques used in CP3D based on changes in the make-up of the pipeline and its environment. These results are used to explain which techniques are more sensitive under dierent conditions. A quantitative relationship is also derived which predicts coating aw size based on simulation parameters and calculated indications. Chapter 5 involves the conclusions made regarding this project based on simulation results and interpretations. Also included in this chapter is discussion of future work which involves possible projects that are related to this work but would take a new and somewhat dierent direction.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) was rst introduced as an alternative method to assess pipeline integrity.1, 2 It is intended to be a way to improve safety by decreasing external corrosion.3, 4 ECDA was initially considered to be an option for pipelines that were not piggable or were dicult for pressure testing or in-line inspection.1, 2 It is characterized as a continuous process for maintaining the integrity of pipelines.13, 5 This is because each time the ECDA process is completed for a given pipeline, it must be scheduled to be completed again. This ensures that the pipeline will always be monitored and maintained. ECDA utilizes traditional methods to evaluate the level of external corrosion, the condition of coating, and the level of cathodic protection.2 Some of these traditional methods include indirect inspection techniques such as DCVG, CIS, PCM, and ACVG. ECDA does not introduce any new techniques, but it does allow for new techniques that can be included into its application.2 ECDA is a four step process aimed at determining the integrity of a given pipeline.4, 5 These steps are Preassessment, Indirect Inspection, Direct Examination, and Post-Assessment.4, 5 Preassessment is the rst step of ECDA. It involves a background study of the pipeline and its surrounding environment. This includes information such as pipeline structure, soil condition, operating history, and previous survey results.2 By collecting this information and evaluating the accessibility of the ground above the buried pipeline, preassessment also includes determining if ECDA can be properly used.2, 3 For example, sometimes pipelines are buried underneath rivers, 3

4 lakes, roads, rocky terrain, or commercial and residential areas.3 This causes many diculties for using indirect inspection techniques. Approval of access must be given by landowners or managers if the pipeline exists in commercial or residential areas.3 For issues of water, roads, or rocky terrain a measurement technique called Guided Wave Ultrasonics has been used in the past.3 This technique is able to gauge metal loss without making electrical contact with the land.3 The selection of which above-ground techniques are to be used is decided in the preassessment step.6, 7 The second step of ECDA, indirect inspection, involves use of the aboveground measurement techniques.5 The indirect inspections are aimed to locate coating holidays as well as areas that either lack the proper amount of cathodic protection or those that have corrosion.1, 2, 5 At least two measurement techniques must be used to follow Direct Assessment protocols.2 They are both to be performed over the same sections of pipeline that are determined from Preassessment and they should be done consecutively without much time in between.2 Most indirect inspections only include CIS and DCVG as the two techniques needed for assessment since ECDA requires them both.2, 3 However, PCM and ACVG are both considered advantageous to use for indirect inspection. Some sources recommend that at least three techniques should be used.3 One advantage of using three is that DCVG is considered to be a slow survey.3 Therefore, if PCM and CIS were rst completed, then it would minimize the length needed for a DCVG survey based on the results already found.3 The third step of ECDA, Direct Examination, involves excavations so that the pipeline can be inspected rst-hand.5 Before excavations are started, this step rst involves evaluating the measurements from the indirect inspections.2 Based on the data collected, a determination is made for which areas need excavation. The excavations are done at areas where the data from above-ground measurements suggest

5 that corrosion is worst.2 These excavations are called bell-hole excavations.3, 8 They allow for reparations to be made and they give the opportunity to determine if indirect indications were accurate.8 In order to completely test whether indications are valid, random excavations are done at areas where there is no indication of defect.3, 8 Further testing done during excavations involve determining the soil resistivity, metal loss, and corrosion rates.3 Once repairs are made and excavations are completed, the last step of ECDA called Post-assessment begins. It is primarily used to evaluate the eectiveness of ECDAs rst three steps and to determine when ECDA will be completed again for the same pipeline.1, 4, 5 This is called a reassessment interval which is calculated to ensure that ECDA will be completed again before corrosion can reach advanced levels that would be detrimental to the future of the pipelines operation and to the health of the environment.2 Once this is determined, step four is completed. Another aspect that can be included in ECDA is Structure Reliability Analysis (SRA). While it is not always used, it can be benecial in providing numbers for the probability of nding defects based on ECDA as well as the probability that the pipeline will fail. SRA is considered a probabilistic technique that can be used in combination with ECDA.3 2.2 Corrosion Background Corrosion has been a concern for centuries and even millennia. The growth of corrosion has coincided over history with the increased use of metals. It has also been suggested that a larger industrial atmosphere and other pollutants have also caused corrosion problems to increase. The Romans were one of the rst known to use methods to ght corrosion. Around 100 B.C., they were recorded to have used methods as simple as applying tar and pitch to the exterior of metals to aid in protection.9 However, in much more recent times scientic approaches have been developed to ght corrosion such as cathodic protection.

6 Corrosion is an issue that has become increasingly important due to its economic impact. There have been many reports that have estimated annual monetary losses due to corrosion. For example, textbooks on corrosion published in the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s have reported losses between 8 and 126 billion dollars a year in the United States of America alone.10, 11 Other sources during this time estimated a tighter range of annual losses between 30 and 70 billion dollars a year.12, 13 By the year 1998, however, another source estimated that 276 billion dollars a year was lost due to corrosion.14 120 million of that 276 billion represented eorts to prevent corrosion.14 Although these are large numbers, they still do not include the indirect costs of corrosion.11 While a direct cost could normally be associated with replacing corroded and ineective equipment, the indirect cost would be due to shutdown of a production line while corroded equipment is being replaced.15 Another example of an indirect cost is the product lost from leaks in pipelines.15 While the cost of xing the leak is reported due to corrosion, the cost of product lost is not included. Over design of equipment is also another indirect eect of corrosion.15 This can be attributed to the inaccuracy or lack of available corrosion information. In order to apply corrosion preventative methods properly, a basic level of knowledge of corrosion is rst needed. Corrosion is dened as the deterioration of a metal due to its chemical interaction with its environment. This chemical interaction involves anodic reactions which are characterized as the dissolution of the metal. The anodic or oxidation reactions must be balanced by cathodic reactions which reduce oxygen or acids at the metal surface. The rate at which the anodic and cathodic reactions proceed must be equal. As the anodic reactions are completed, the oxidized ferrous ions begin reacting with reduced hydroxide ions forming rust. The presence of rust represents the deterioration of the metal.

7 The likelihood of a given metal corroding is partially due to the type of metal being used since some metals are more likely to corrode than other metals. The metals that are more likely to corrode are called active metals and the metals that do not corrode easily are called noble metals. Examples of noble metals are gold, platinum, and silver. As noble metals they do not give up their electrons very easily. The limitation of these metals is that they are rare and costly. Due to the large demand for metals, more abundant metals are needed for large scale operations. Iron is the most abundant metal on earth and it is sturdy and strong. However, as a more abundant metal, it is much more active. As an active metal it is more capable of losing its electrons and oxidizing under normal conditions. To be used, metals must be extracted from their ores or the minerals that they are contained in. The science involving the use of procedures to extract metals from their ores is called metallurgy. It takes energy to extract metals from their ores. The energy needed is the same amount of energy that is released when the reactions producing corrosion are occurring.11 Therefore, sometimes corrosion is referred to as extractive metallurgy in reverse because corrosion transforms the metal back into its original state.10, 11, 13 An ore or a corroded metal no longer maintains its metallic properties. Some of the most natural ores are oxides and suldes.9 There are many dierent conditions that favor corrosion. High temperatures around 500 degrees Fahrenheit and high pressures can both be very hostile towards metals.10 The presence of a gas such as hydrogen sulde is also very corrosive.10 These conditions are becoming more likely in industrial chemical processes as they are needed to produce higher yields in product.10 However, some processes have always caused an increase in corrosivity. One example is the conversion of coal to both oil and gas as it causes high temperatures and emits corrosive gases.10 These conditions formed from the conversion of coal can be termed as dry

8 corrosion.10 Dry corrosion occurs from vapors or gases. The conditions are above the environments dew point when dry corrosion occurs.10 Corrosion can also be described as wet corrosion. Wet corrosion is more common than dry corrosion.10 It usually occurs when there are aqueous solutions or electrolytes present.10 Some chemicals are more corrosive depending on whether they are present as a gas or a liquid. For example, dry chlorine is very corrosive, but not when it is dissolved in water.10 For acid solutions, corrosivity is increased if dissolved oxygen is present. This is because oxygen will also reduce at the metal surface to form water which causes the rate of metal dissolution to increase.10 There is also a dierence in corrosivity depending on whether the materials used are organic or inorganic. Inorganic materials are considered less corrosive than organic materials.10 Examples of inorganic materials are those without carbon compounds such as sulfur, sodium chloride, and hydrochloric acid.10 Examples of organic materials are naphtha and oil.10 Although corrosion was not as rampant in earlier times as it is today, it still has been a problem for centuries. Records indicate that the Romans used methods to ght corrosion around 100 B.C.9 They used oil and tar to protect bronze and they used pitch and gypsum to protect iron.9 There is no known evidence of a scientic approach used to combat corrosion until the 19th century.9 There are several reasons why corrosion was not as large of an issue in earlier times than it is today. One reason is because the metals they used were those that were most easily extracted from their ores.9 This meant that they did not revert back to their original state easily. Other reasons corrosion is a larger issue today are due to the increasing use of metals and the ever growing industrial atmosphere.9 Today there are lots of ways that corrosion is fought. Some are simple and some are much more complex and scientic. Simple methods involve protecting

9 metals with paints, caulking materials, polymers, metallic coatings, or organic coatings. Some examples of organic coatings are coal and asphalt enamels, polyethylene tapes, and fusion bonded epoxy.14 These organic coatings are preferred for the use of pipelines.14 There are also corrosion inhibitors which can be sprayed onto the metals surface forming a non-conducting lm. These corrosion inhibitors can be included with organic coatings to provide additional protection.16, 17 An alternative to applying external protection to metals is to use high performance steels that include chromium or nickel which have a high resistance to corrosion. As for more scientic approaches, cathodic and anodic protections are the most common used to ght corrosion. Although there are principle dierences between the two, they both involve maintaining metals such as tanks and pipelines at certain potentials in order to make the dissolution of metal atoms unfavorable. 2.3 Cathodic Protection 2.3.1 Background The rst person to describe the use of cathodic protection was Sir Humphrey Davy in 1824.9, 10 Through experimentation he showed that by connecting two metals electrically and submerging them both in water that one metal would remain in good condition while the other metal would deteriorate at an increased rate.9 He was soon asked to apply this method to help protect the British Naval ships.9, 10 He was called upon because in his work he had suggested that the bottoms of ships could be protected by attaching zinc and iron plates.9 He ended up using cast iron because he found that it remained electrically active longer than either zinc or iron.9 A century later, cathodic protection was also used to protect underground pipelines. Pipelines were rst installed underground in the United States in the 1920s.9 They quickly became a large concern due to their susceptibility to corrosion since they were primarily made of iron or steel and the surrounding soil contained

10 appreciable levels of oxygen, water, and salts. Pipelines became susceptible to leaks as corrosion would accelerate eventually degrading areas of the metal completely. This became of major consequence as problems occurred such as re, contamination of the environment, lost product, service interruptions, and declining relations with the public.9 Since many underground pipelines carry oil and natural gas over hundreds of miles, it is quite a task to ensure that an entire pipeline is protected. Today, over 1.3 million miles of underground pipeline are used to carry natural gas and another 170,000 miles is used to transport oil or other petroleum products.18, 19 By the 1930s pipeline owners began ghting corrosion by applying external coatings and implementing cathodic protection.9 The corrosivity of the ground was measured in order to focus on areas which needed protection the most and eorts made were considered to be successful.9 After coatings were applied on pipelines, accelerated corrosion was found at certain areas and it became evident that CP must accompany the coating.20 During installation or excavation of pipelines with coatings it is likely that the coating will be scraped or damaged in some places leaving bare spots. These areas are called coating aws or coating holidays. One study found that a coating aw causes a much greater risk to the pipeline than there would be if the coating was completely absent as the potential for localized failure of the pipeline is greatly increased.21 This is because the unprotected metal forms a galvanic couple with the adjacent protected metal underneath the coating.22 In the galvanic couple the bare metal becomes the anode and the neighboring metal covered by the coating becomes the cathode as if it were an electrochemical cell. This further protects the metal underneath the coating and accelerates the deterioration of the unprotected metal. The use of coatings also help CP systems because they reduce the current requirement needed for protection.21 Therefore, the amount of current needed to polarize the pipe steel by 100mV is also decreased.22 There are also some

11 properties that coatings should exhibit in order to work well for pipelines.23 For example, pipeline coatings should have strong adhesion to the pipeline and oer exibility at high temperatures.23 These coatings should also have resistance to soil stress and cathodic disbonding.23 2.3.2 Principles of CP Cathodic protection is a scientic approach used to protect a metal structure from degradation. It involves electrically connecting two metals in an electrolyte. For underground pipelines, the soil can be considered to be the electrolyte. There are two dierent types of cathodic protection. One is through use of a sacricial anode and the other is by impressed current. CP with the use of a sacricial anode involves galvanically coupling the pipeline with a metal more active than the metal of the pipeline. The metal that is considered to be more active is the metal that has a more negative standard equilibrium potential. Once they are connected a potential dierence develops between the two metals. The more active metal acts as the anode and the more noble pipeline metal acts as a cathode. As the more active metal, the anode will give up its electrons much easier than the noble metal. There are two reactions that can occur normally at the pipelines surface. One of these reactions is the oxidation of iron Fe Fe2+ + 2e The other reaction is the reduction of oxygen O2 + 2H2 O + 4e 4OH (2.2) (2.1)

These two reactions must be electrically balanced so that they proceed at the same rate. Since the integrity of the pipeline can be compromised by the iron dissolution reaction, the rate of this reaction must be reduced. This is done by providing the excess of electrons from the anode. The metal dissolution reaction of the anode is

12

Figure 21: A CP system with a sacricial anode. given as M Mn+ + ne (2.3)

where M represents the sacricial anode metal being oxidized. By degradation of the anode metal, electrons are supplied to the pipeline so that the oxygen reduction reaction can occur which reduces the rate of the iron oxidation reaction. The electrons are delivered to the pipeline through a low resistance wire as shown in Figure 21. Therefore, through galvanic coupling the more active anode begins to degrade which further protects the more noble pipeline metal. Figure 21 gives a visualization of a cathodic protection system with a sacricial anode and its placement in respect to the buried pipeline. Most sacricial anodes are made of either magnesium or zinc since they are both more active as compared to iron pipelines. CP systems with impressed current involve supplying current from an external source in order to protect pipelines. This is done by a rectier or DC generator

13 which can convert alternating current from an external power source to direct current. This creates a voltage drop between the anode and the pipeline which drives electrons from the anode to the metal through the low resistance wire. By an excess of electrons at the pipelines surface, the potential of the metal is polarized to a more negative potential. The rate of oxygen reduction reaction (2.2) is increased and the anodic or oxidation reaction (2.1) which normally occurs at the pipelines surface becomes unfavorable. If the potential of the pipeline becomes too polarized the hydrogen evolution reaction H2 O + 2e H2 + 2OH (2.4)

can occur. The evolution of hydrogen can result in hydrogen embrittlement of the pipeline, so it is necessary to ensure that polarization does not cause the pipelines potential to become too negative. Figure 22 gives a representation of how the arrangement is dierent for a CP system with impressed current. The current is supplied to the pipeline from the anode through the soil. When the current reaches the pipeline it travels toward the low-resistance wire. This low-resistance wire allows for the return of current to the anode from the pipeline. The anode in this system is made up of an inert material so that it will not chemically react with the environment and degrade as a sacricial anode would. Sometimes the anode can be more noble than the pipeline. In this case, the rectier must overcome both the resistance of the circuit and the back potential created from the more noble anode in order to ow current in the proper direction.20 In order to balance the reduction reactions occurring at the pipelines surface, there must be oxidation reactions occurring at the surface of the impressed current anode. The main reaction occurring is the oxidation of water or the evolution of oxygen given as 2H2 O O2 + 4H+ + 4e (2.5)

14

Figure 22: A CP system with impressed current. At more extreme positive potentials the evolution of chlorine can also occur as 2Cl Cl2 + 2e There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both sacricial anodes and impressed current anodes. Some of the advantages of a sacricial anode are that it does not require an external energy source and that is self sustained. Therefore, a sacricial anode can be preferred in areas where an external energy source is unavailable. On the other hand, CP systems with impressed current anodes do consume external energy. Some of its advantages involve that it can supply a larger magnitude of protection and will also last longer. For example, eventually a sacricial anode will be consumed by the environment and must be replaced. By supplying more protection, impressed current anodes can be used to protect larger sections of pipeline and handle more resistive soil environments. One of the few disadvantages of impressed current CP systems can be due to the risk (2.6)

15 of supplying too much current causing damaging hydrogen evolution. However, this should be able to be prevented by properly controlling the rectier and having knowledge of the pipeline and its environment. 2.4 Internal Inspection Techniques There are two types of Internal Inspection techniques discussed in this section. One is called pressure testing or hydrostatic testing. The other is called in-line inspections (ILIs) or pigging. ILI involves measuring the conditions of the pipeline through ultrasonic testing (UT) or magnetic ux leakage (MFL) sensors. The inspections are referred to as in-line because they involve measurements inside of the pipeline. Pipeline inspections using ILI tools began being utilized between the mid 1960s and mid 1970s.24, 25 Pressure testing has been used for much longer. Pressure testing involves hydrostatic pressure which is applied to the internal walls of pipelines. It tests the ability of a pipeline to maintain pressure and resist bursting. Pressure testing is also capable of locating areas where internal corrosion damage to an extent leading to pipe wall failure is present. It is able to do so by determining the sturdiness of the walls of the pipeline. Usually pressures are tested around 1.5 times the normal operating pressure expected to be placed on the interior of the pipeline. Pipelines are taken o line during pressure testing and the uid being transported must be displaced so that it can be re-lled with water through the use of pumps. This can cause some environmental issues involving the disposal of the uids that are normally transported in pipelines as well as the disposal of the used and contaminated hydrostatic test water.1 Pressure testing is often done upon the completion of the building of a pipeline so that it can be tested at certain pressure levels beyond those required during operation.24 This can also determine if construction defects are present. ILIs involve the use of pigs. A pig is a device that moves through the pipeline for either inspection or cleaning. Sometimes pigging is used before pressure testing

16 so that the pipeline is initially clean. If a pipeline is not pigged its throughput capacity may decrease over time. There are dierent designs used to insert and retrieve pigs from the pipeline. Some pipelines have built in systems where an additional line will join the pipeline from above the ground so that a pig can be launched into the pipeline. Similarly, in order to retrieve a pig there is a stray line which forks o of the main pipeline to a location above-ground so that it can be recovered. There are several dierent types of pigs used due to their dierent functions. Some are called smart pigs because of their ability to detect corrosion, gouges, or dents. Usually the rst type of pig used is a scout pig which will detect whether the pipeline is clean or if there are any obstructions in the interior of the pipeline. Then cleaning pigs can be used in order to remove or displace debris or wax buildup on the interior walls. This is done by brushers or scrapers which are attached to the pig. Another type of pig involves magnetic ux leakage (MFL). It can detect both internal and external corrosion defects. MFL is used for gas pipelines while ultrasonic testing (UT) is used for liquid pipelines. A document was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy regarding a new method using MFL.26 This document outlines methods for determining axially oriented defects which stretch along the length of the pipeline. According to normal MFL measurements the original orientation of the magnetic eld created did not detect these anomalies. However, by orienting the magnetic eld around the circumference of the pipeline these axial defects were detected. One of the problems with pigging or pressure testing in terms of detection of corrosion is that they are detecting problems with the pipeline after they have occurred. However, early detection can be the key since problem areas can then be corrected before they become potential failures. Another limitation can be due to the lack of physical accessibility of some areas of the pipeline. The land above

17 buried pipelines sometimes involves rocky terrain or developed areas where access to a given pipeline may be unavailable. It is preferred that pig launch and retrieval systems are built upon installation of a given pipeline. Then pigs can be used to help prepare the pipeline before it goes online by cleaning it. Another concern for using pigs is that pipelines do not turn at sharp angles or have any dents which might cause a pig to get stuck. A pipeline may not be a good candidate for pigging due to inadequate pressure, ow, costs of modications, and customer issues.25 The systems involving launching pigs and retrieving pigs as well as the pigs themselves are all very expensive equipment. Natural gas pipelines are often not amenable to pigging or pressure testing.2 These types of pipelines are not designed for pig insertion and also they can not be taken o-line for pressure testing due to service demands. Direct Assessment is a method that is considered as an alternative to inspect pipelines if pressure testing or pigging are unavailable.1 2.5 Above-Ground Measurement (Indirect) Techniques The following measurement techniques are used to determine pipeline integrity through indirect inspections. These techniques are termed as indirect because they do not involve physically inspecting the pipeline rst hand. These techniques rely on voltage and potential distributions that arise in the soil or electrolyte due to the CP system that is in place to protect the pipeline. 2.5.1 Close Interval Survey (CIS) The Close Interval Survey (CIS) technique has historically been used to characterize how well the CP system is working.3, 6, 27 It gives both on-potential and o-potential proles along the length of the pipeline at the ground surface. These potentials are measured at the soil surface with respect to the potential of the pipeline. Test stations are placed at intervals usually between one and two kilometers along the pipeline. Each test station allows for a direct connection to be made to the pipeline. Between test stations, surveyors use a trailing wire to

18 remain connected to the previous test station. The measurements are made at the ground surface by use of a walking stick probe with a Cu/CuSO4 reference electrode placed at the bottom so it is touching the ground. It is used to measure the potential at the soil surface directly above the pipeline with respect to the direct connection with the pipeline. A pipe locator is used to ensure the proper location of measurements at the ground surface. Measurements are taken every ve feet along the pipeline. The on-potentials and o-potentials are measured at each location by interrupting the CP current. When the CP current is turned on, the on-potential reading is measured. When it is interrupted or disconnected, the o-potential reading is found. Acceptable potentials are expected to be in the range between -850mV and -1200mV.28 One concern during the CIS survey is that depolarization may occur when the CP current is interrupted. It is suggested that the length of the CP interruption cycle is limited in order to maintain proper polarization levels. Through interruption, the CP current is turned on and o continuously. It is suggested that these on and o intervals are maintained at three seconds for the CP current on and one second for the CP current o. This represents a four-second interruption cycle. The one- second interval has been found to be long enough to allow for correct measurement of the o-potential. CIS indications are often analyzed by placing results in three dierent categories.7, 8, 28, 29 The rst category is labeled as a Type I indication. This level of indication is characterized as minor since both the on-potential and o-potential values for the peaks of the dips remain more negative than -850mV. In Figure 23, a representation of a Type I indication is shown along with Type II and Type III indications. Type II is considered as a moderate indication. It has an on-potential dip in which the peak value remains more negative than -850mV while the o-potentials dip does not. The Type II indication is considered to be

19

-960 -940
-850 mV on off

potential (mV)

-920 -900 -880 -860 -840 -820 -800 0 50 100

Type I

Type II

Type III
150 200

length along pipe (feet)


Figure 23: A representation of on- and o-potential proles which show how CIS dips are categorized. Each data point represents a measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline. properly protected by the CP system. Type III indications are termed as severe. These types of dips have peak values for on- and o-potentials which extend into the range more positive than -850mV. The presence of a defect is considered likely under this indication and the ability of the CP system to protect it is considered to be unlikely. There are some limitations of CIS. Indications are expected to only indicate whether corrosion is taking place at the time of the measurement. It is not expected that a CIS survey will indicate areas where corrosion may have occurred previously.8, 28 While CIS is able to detect the possibility of holidays, it is not the preferred method to discover such locations. The primary function of CIS is to determine how well the CP system is working for a given pipeline. As mentioned, this can be done by nding dips in the on- and o-potential proles and determining whether the CP current should properly protect these locations.

20 2.5.2 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) The Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) survey is used to determine the location of a coating aw or holiday and to categorize its relative severity once it is found. This is done by using two dierent calculations. The rst of these two calculations is in units of mV and it is used to determine the coating aws location as measurements are made along the length of the pipeline. The second calculation is termed as a percent-IR calculation and it involves measurements moving away from the pipeline. The measurements of DCVG in mV are completed by detecting a voltage gradient at the surface of the ground above the pipeline. This voltage gradient is detected by the use of two Cu/CuSO4 electrodes. These electrodes are placed at the bottom of walking stick probes as those used in the CIS survey. One electrode is placed at the ground surface directly above the pipeline and the other is placed at a location approximately ve feet away from the pipeline, but also at the ground surface. There is no direct connection made to the pipeline as in the CIS survey. This measurement takes into account only the voltage gradient found between the two electrodes which is the result of current entering the pipeline at a coating aw. CP rectiers are interrupted at a regular cycle which creates a DC signal detected by the potential dierence between the electrodes. The electrodes are electrically connected to a voltmeter which displays the voltage gradient detected in mV. Measurements along the pipeline are typically made at ve feet intervals. When the survey begins, the eld engineer nulls the voltmeter so that the rst value or reading is at zero. This means that as the CP current is interrupted, the voltmeter remains at zero even when the CP current is switched back and forth between on and o. As a coating aw is approached, the voltmeter will begin swinging in either the positive direction or the negative direction from zero depending on the direction of current detected in the soil or electrolyte. When

21 the CP current is switched o, the voltmeter goes back to zero. However, as the coating aw approaches, the voltmeter continues to give either the positive or negative reading when the CP current is switched on that is consistent with the previous measurements. The magnitude of this value increases as the coating aw approaches. The magnitude of the voltage reading will reach its maximum when the surveyors measurement is made directly above the aw. This is evidenced by the voltmeters sudden swing from positive to negative or vice versa when the aw is passed. For example, if the voltmeter has shown increasing positive values up to 75 mV, then once the aw is passed the voltmeter will swing to -75 mV. Then all of the measurements will continue to be negative as the surveyor moves on along the pipeline in the same direction. However, the absolute value of the reading will decrease back towards zero as movement is made further away from the coating aw. This behavior found by use of the voltmeter is due to the detection of a direction change in the ow of current in the electrolyte. The current in the electrolyte or soil is always moving toward the coating aw, therefore when the aw is passed there is a change in direction of the current. Once a coating aw or defect is found and located, its size and severity must be determined. This further characterization of the coating aw is done through the calculation of DCVG in percent-IR. There are two steps that the eld surveyor follows in determining the percent-IR value for a given coating aw. The rst is by taking lateral voltage gradients moving away from the pipeline. These lateral measurements are shown in Figure 24 where point A represents the location of the aw. Successive lateral measurements are made in the direction away from the pipeline and the coating aw until the voltage gradient reaches a value of less than or equal to one mV. The location where the lateral voltage gradients are not greater than one mV is termed either as remote earth or IR innity. Again these voltage gradients are measured by the ve foot spacing of Cu/CuSO4 electrodes.

22

Figure 24: The percent-IR calculation is shown using the lateral voltage gradients with the interpolated value of IR drop over the coating aw. The voltage gradients are then added up and divided by the IR drop at the soil surface directly above the coating aw. However, the IR drop over the soil surface is not measured directly since a direct connection to the pipeline is not made. Therefore, this value must be interpolated by using the known values of potentials that are directly connected to the pipeline. This is shown in Figure 25 as the closest test posts are used since they are directly connected to the pipeline. At the location of each test post the IR drop can be measured. Once a percentage is calculated for a given coating aw, it is categorized based on what range of values it lies in. There are four categories that are generally used to dierentiate the severity or size of holidays. The rst category is for IR drops between zero and 15 percent. If a coating aw has a percent-IR in this range it is considered to be safe and not severe. This is because the CP system is expected to provide adequate protection for a coating aw with such a low percent-IR value. Therefore, no action is needed. If the percent-IR is between 15 and 35 percent, its

23

Figure 25: A diagram showing how an IR measurement is interpolated at the ground surface above the coating aw. severity is also considered to be minimal. However, the survey must be performed again in the near future to further monitor it. The third category is between 35 and 70 percent. A sucient amount of coating damage is expected to be present for a percent-IR value in this range. However, a eld engineer is allowed to make the decision to either take immediate action and excavate or to schedule another survey in the near future for further monitoring. For a percent-IR value above 70 percent, immediate action is necessary. Digging at the site of the coating aw is needed so that the pipeline can be physically repaired. Upon completion of the percent-IR calculation and its assessment, the DCVG survey is considered to be completed. 2.5.3 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) The Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) technique is similar to the DCVG technique. They are similar in that ACVG is also used to determine the location of holidays in order to evaluate the coating condition of the pipeline.

24 However, instead of a DC signal being created, an AC signal is initiated from a frequency transmitter. This can be done by either a high frequency transmitter or a low frequency transmitter. This signal is detected by the voltage gradient measured between two electrodes at the surface of the ground. However, these electrodes are placed at the bottom of a structure which is called an A-Frame because of its shape. The A-Frame is planted into the ground in order to measure the voltage gradient. The width of the A-Frame causes another dierence between ACVG and DCVG due to a discrepancy in distance between the electrodes. The width of the A-Frame is 31.5 inches which is roughly half the distance of the spacing of the electrodes when making DCVG measurements. 2.5.4 Current Attenuation The purpose of this technique is to determine the overall coating condition of the pipeline. It relates current change along the length of the pipeline to the area of the exposed metal known as the coating aw. This technique is sometimes referred to as the Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM) technique. This survey involves both the use of a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter is able to simulate the low frequency DC signal similar to that of the CP system. However it can also simulate the AC signal at either low frequency (4Hz) or high frequency (937.5Hz). The receiver is responsible for making all of the necessary measurements and calculations. Its primary output is the ability to plot current versus distance along the pipeline. The portable receiver is able to plot points as it moves along the pipeline further increasing its distance from the transmitter. The magnitude of current slowly decreases as distance from the transmitter increases. However, there is sharp drop in the magnitude of current when a coating aw is present. The magnitude of current drops because the pipeline consumes a large portion of the current at the location of the coating aw. Once the current reaches the pipeline it travels back down the pipeline in the direction of the transmitter. The relative

25 size of holidays can be determined by noting the size of the drop in the plot of current versus distance. If there are multiple holidays found, then the relative sizes of the step changes in current can be compared to determine which ones are most severe. The larger the drop of in current is the larger the size of the coating aw is expected to be. One of the advantages of this type of survey is that it helps show how CP current can be lost along the pipeline. If certain locations of the pipeline are large consumers of CP current, it can cause a lack of current to be able to reach other portions of the pipeline which need protection.

CHAPTER 3 CP3D 3.1 Description of CP3D CP3D is a mathematical model in the form of a computer software program. It has been developed by Dr. Mark Orazems electrochemical engineering research group at the University of Florida as a comprehensive model for cathodic protection. It allows for the creation of a visualized three-dimensional cathodic protection system of buried structures. This program was developed as a tool to help improve the ability to assess pipeline conditions. There are several parameters that can be used and varied in the calculations performed by the mathematical model. Some of these include coating aw or coating holiday size, soil resistivity, cathodic protection level, coating condition, depth of cover, and pipe thickness. In order to perform the dierent above-ground techniques in CP3D, a soil surface is created and utilized within the program. The soil surface is made up of nodes where onand o-potentials are calculated by the model at each nodes exact location. In order to study the details of interest, soil surfaces are placed over the anode and the coating aw location of the pipe. The soil surface areas above the anode and above the aw represent areas where a useful distribution of on- and o-potentials are found. Figure 31 is an image of the three dimensional environment of CP3D showing the arrangement of the soil surface with the pipeline and the coating aw. The soil surface must be limited in size to avoid putting a strain on the resources of the program. However, in a real-life eld survey, measurements must eventually cover the entire pipeline in order to properly inspect its complete condition. Since the area of interest is specied within CP3D, a soil surface that covers the entire pipeline is not necessary. 26

27

Figure 31: An image from CP3D showing the physical orientation of the soil surface with respect to the pipeline. The darker area on the pipeline represents the coating aw or holiday. 3.2 Mathematical Development There are a set of governing equations for the CP3D model that work as a basis for all calculations made by the program. For protection of underground pipelines, this model accounts for the current ow through the soil, the pipeline, and through the circuitry back to the anode. There are two dierent domains which are governed separately in the model. One domain is called the outer domain which is represented by the soil. The other is called the inner domain which represents the pipeline, the anode, and the electrical wiring that connects them. The rst of the governing equations for the outer domain is the material balance of a solute species ci = ( Ni ) + Ri t (3.1)

where ci is the concentration of a species i, Ni is the net ux vector for species i, and Ri represents the rate of generation of species i due to homogeneous reactions.

28 Homogeneous reactions are dened as the reactions which occur in the electrolyte and not at the electrode surfaces, which in this system are either the anode or the pipeline. Equation (3.1) must be coupled with the equation of electroneutrality in order to properly account for the concentrations and potentials that are present in the soil. The equation for electroneutrality is given as zi ci = 0
i

(3.2)

where zi represents the charge associated with species i. For a dilute electrolyte, the ux of a given species can be given based on its contributions from convection, diusion, and migration as Ni = vc Di ci zi ui F ci (3.3)

where v is the uid velocity, Di is the diusion coecient for species i, ui is the mobility, F is Faradays constant and represents the distribution of potential in the domain. The diusion coecient is related to the mobility by the NernstEinstein equation as Di = RT ui (3.4)

where R is the gas constant and T is the temperature. The equation for current density is based on the contribution of the movement of each ionic species and is given as i=F
i

zi Ni

(3.5)

If the concentration of ions in the electrolyte are uniform and steady state is assumed the equation for current density can be written as Ohms law. Therefore, i = (3.6)

29 where represents the conductivity of the electrolyte. The conductivity is given by = F2


i

zi2 ui ci

(3.7)

and it is uniform because the concentration is uniform. Due to uniform concentration, the potential is governed by Laplaces equation which is given as 2 = 0 (3.8)

Laplaces equation can be derived by rst multiplying equation (3.1) by zi F and summing over the species which gives F t zi ci = F
i i

zi Ni + F
i

zi Ri

(3.9)

From electroneutrality and from the assumption that Ri is zero because it represents reactions in the bulk, equation (3.9) reduces to i=0 (3.10)

By substituting Ohms law into equation (3.10) and by the assumption of constant conductivity, Laplaces equation is obtained. Since it is assumed that there are no concentration gradients in the soil or electrolyte, the concentration gradients due to reactions at the surface of the anode and pipeline are treated so that they lie in a thin layer adjacent to these surfaces.21 The concentration gradients in this thin layer are incorporated into the boundary condition which is based on electrochemical reactions. For the inner domain, there are also some assumptions that must be made. For example, this model treats the potential through the pipeline as non-uniform. Previously, pipelines of shorter lengths have neglected the potential drop along the pipeline steel.30 However, it has been proven that for long pipelines this potential drop can not be neglected.9, 20, 31

30 Laplaces equation also governs the ow of current through the pipe steel, anode, and the connecting wires. It is given as (V ) = 0 (3.11)

where is the conductivity of either the pipeline steel, the anode, or the electrical wires and V is the drop in potential of the metal from a uniform value. The conductivity of the inner domain is not constant because it is not the same for the anode, pipeline, or the copper connecting wires. Laplaces equation can be simplied as V = IR = I L A (3.12)

which accounts for the potential drop along the copper connecting wires. For this equation, R represents the resistance of the wire, represents the electrical resistivity of the wire, L is the length, and A is the cross-sectional area of the connecting wire. The two domains are coupled through boundary conditions. The boundary conditions develop a relationship between the local values of potential and the current density on the metal surface.21 This relationship varies depending on whether the type of surface is the bare metal pipeline, the coated pipeline, a sacricial anode, or an impressed current anode. 3.2.1 Bare Steel For a non-coated pipeline, bare steel is exposed to the soil. Bare steel can also be exposed in places where a coated pipeline has scratches or aws on it. There are three dierent electrochemical reactions that can take place at the surface of the bare steel. These reactions include the oxidation of iron, reduction of oxygen, and hydrogen evolution. Hydrogen evolution can occur if the metal is polarized to very negative potentials. The current contribution of each of these reactions can be included in the relationship between local current density i, the potential

31 of the steel V , and the potential of the soil next to the steel . The following equation32, 33 represents the boundary condition of the bare metal pipeline and the adjacent soil and is given as i = 10
(V EF e ) F e

1 ilim,O2

10

(V EO ) 2 O 2

)1 10

(V EH ) 2 H 2

(3.13)

The term EF e represents the equilibrium potential for the oxidation of iron and this term is written similarly for the reactions of oxygen reduction and hydrogen evolution. The term is given for each reaction and it represents the tafel slope of the corresponding reaction. The ilim,O2 term represents the mass transfer limiting current density of oxygen reduction at the metal surface. Therefore, the current contribution of oxygen reduction can not be larger than the value of ilim,O2 . 3.2.2 Coated Steel For coated pipelines, treatment of the reactions at the pipeline-soil interface must be dierent than that of bare steel. The purpose of the coating is to provide resistance for the transport of reducing species to the metal surface. It also reduces the amount of CP current that is needed to protect a given pipeline. There are two main types of coating behavior and these are both modeled dierently. One model of coating behavior is where the transport of species is uniform through the coating. The electrochemical reactions take place once the transported species reaches the coating-metal interface. These reactions are driven by the dierence in potential V of the metal and the potential in just underneath the coating but still above the metal or steel. The other type of model involves the presence of pores which allow for the transport of solute species to take place. It has been shown that the pore structure will expand after it has been contacted with water and that the conductivity of the coating increases with time after its exposure to water.34 The resistivity of the coating with pores is a function of the number of pores per unit area. The

32 electrochemical reactions also take place at the coating-metal interface for this model and these reactions are also driven by the potential dierence between V and in . It has been shown that the non-porous coated steel forms a diusion barrier when put in aqueous environments. As the water is adsorbed by the coating, the steel can be polarized slightly even if the coating is disbonded.3538 Equation (3.13) can be modied based on either model of transport through the coating.39, 40 The current density can be written as a function of the potential drop through the coating as i= in (3.14)

where is the potential of the soil adjacent to the coating, is the resistivity of the coating, and is the thickness of the coating. By writing the current density in terms of electrochemical reactions it is also given as
in EF e ) Apore (V 1 Fe i= [10 ( 10 A (1 blk )ilim,O2 (V in EO ) 2 O 2

10

(V in EH ) 2 O 2

(3.15) where
Apore A

is the eective surface area available for reactions to occur and block is

the reduction of the transport of oxygen through the diusion barrier. In order to determine the values for the current density (i) and in , both equation (3.14) and equation (3.15) are solved simultaneously by the Newton-Ralphson method. 3.2.3 Sacricial and Impressed Current Anodes The reactions at the surface of a sacricial anode involve normally oxygen reduction and the corrosion reaction of the anode. The current density expression is treated similarly as that of the bare steel except that the hydrogen evolution reaction is neglected. The expression is given as i = ilim,O2 (10
V Ecorr anode

1)

(3.16)

33 where Ecorr is the corrosion potential at the anode and anode is the corresponding Tafel slope for the anodic corrosion reaction. The current density model equation for impressed current anodes is similar to that of the galvanic or sacricial anode. The only dierence is the inclusion of the rectier potential setting. This equation is given as i = ilim,O2 (10
V Vrect Ecorr anode

1)

(3.17)

This equation must be modied if there are chloride ions present in the soil. 3.3 Replication of Techniques The above-ground measurement techniques that are used in eld surveys to assess pipeline integrity can be reproduced within the CP3D program. These techniques are replicated by using the on and o potentials calculated by the mathematical model of CP3D at each nodes surface location. Then the additional calculations are done which are specic to each technique. 3.3.1 CIS When using CP3D to explore the CIS technique, the potential measured with a reference electrode at grade is simulated. A prole of on-potentials and opotentials along the surface directly above the pipeline can be plotted for a given simulation as shown in Figure 32. The on-potential prole is more negative than the o-potential prole representing an increased level of protection when the CP is turned on. Under most conditions proles for both on- and o-potentials as shown in Figure 32 will have a dip located at the coating aw or holiday. The potentials are most positive at the dip representing the coating aw location. Conversely, the most negative potentials occur far away from the coating aw. The calculation of the CIS dip indication is explained in Figure 33. Figure 33 shows that the CIS dip indication is calculated by taking the IR drop over the coating aw and subtracting it by the IR drop that is both above the pipeline

34

-0.98 -0.96

potential (V)

-0.94 -0.92 -0.9 -0.88 -0.86 0 20 40 60 80


On Potential Off Potential

position on soil surface (ft)


Figure 32: A prole of on- and o-potentials from CP3D simulation data where the dip indicates the location of the coating aw. Each data point represents a measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline. and far away from the coating aw. This calculation is done separately for both on-potential and o-potential giving two dierent dip indications. By calculating the dip for both on- and o-potential, a conclusion can be drawn about the current demand to the coating aw. 3.3.2 DCVG The DCVG survey is simulated using potentials calculated by the model of CP3D as shown in Figure 34. The nodes are spaced equally to stay consistent with the spacing between two electrodes. Figure 34 shows that there are nodes located both directly over the pipeline and on an imaginary line parallel to the pipeline. At each position along the length of the pipeline, the dierence between the IR drop over the pipeline and the IR drop over the imaginary line is calculated. This gives a DCVG indication value at each 5.2 foot interval along the pipeline. This distance represents the approximate separation length between electrodes that are planted by a surveyor when taking a measurement. The DCVG indication is the voltage gradient that is calculated directly over the coating aw. Figure

35

Figure 33: A schematic of how CIS indication is calculated using the nodes of the soil surface.

Figure 34: A schematic of how DCVG measurements are made using CP3D.

36

4 3.5

potential (mV)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

position on soil surface (ft)


Figure 35: A prole of DCVG measurements above the pipeline. The peak value represents the overall DCVG indication. 34 explains that DCVG is calculated by taking the dierence in adjacent IR drops. The dierence in adjacent IR drops approach a constant value when moving away from a coating aw. Therefore, these values increase as the coating aw is approached and then decrease once it is passed. Figure 35 shows a representation of this behavior. In Figure 34, the peak value would be the dierence in IR drops between nodes A and B, assuming that the coating aw is located at node A. For all simulations with coating aws, the shape of the curve in Figure 35 is similar where the DCVG calculation is largest at the coating aw. Each data point represents the DCVG calculation in mV that is represented along the soil surface in the lengthwise direction of the pipeline. It is clear where the location of the coating aw is due to the peak value shown in Figure 35. A dierent section of nodes is needed from the soil surface to calculate DCVG in percent-IR. Figure 36 shows the relationship between the nodes that are used

37 in percent-IR calculations. Only those nodes running perpendicular to the pipeline at the location of the coating aw are used. The spacing of the nodes remains consistent at approximately 5.2 feet. In order to use the correct number of nodes to determine percent-IR, the dierences for all adjacent IR drops are calculated. This dierence decreases as the distance of the nodes from the pipeline increase towards remote earth. As similar to a the real eld survey, once the dierence between adjacent nodes reaches one mV or less, no more nodes further from the pipeline are needed in determining percent-IR. An example of data from a simulation which gives the prole of all perpendicular IR drops is shown in Figure 37. This gure shows the general behavior of data from simulations in that as distance from the pipe increases, the IR drops approach a constant value. Therefore, in Figure 36, the equation shown to calculate percent-IR is only correct if node D is at remote earth. This means that if node E was included in Figure 36, that its IR drop would be no more than one mV dierent from that of node D. The IR drop at remote earth can also be termed as IR innity. The calculation of percent-IR is illustrated in Figure 36. It explains that percent-IR is found by taking the dierence in IR drop between the node over the coating aw and the node at remote earth and dividing that quantity by the IR drop of the node over the coating aw. This calculation is complete once the value is multiplied by 100 in order to make the quantity a percentage. There are also other denitions of percent-IR that can be used in terms of its calculation. For example, percent-IR can be dened to be calculated dierently by dividing by the IR drop at remote earth (node D) instead of the IR drop over the coating aw. Another type of denition would scale or divide by the IR drop over the pipeline but far from the aw. These calculations can be used to further verify trends in the data.

38

Figure 36: A schematic of how percent-IR is measured and calculated.

-49 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -60 0 5 10 15 20

potential (mV)

position on soil surface (ft)


Figure 37: A prole of IR drops in the perpendicular direction to the pipeline. The IR drops are all at the same lengthwise position as the coating aw in respect to the pipeline.

39 3.3.3 ACVG When using CP3D, ACVG is calculated almost exactly as DCVG. The main dierence is that the spacing of the nodes is 31.5 inches for ACVG and 5.2 feet for DCVG. The soil surface was created so that the concentration of nodes would allow for the calculation of both ACVG and DCVG. The ACVG indication is also found to be the maximum value of calculated measurements as voltage gradients are taken along the pipeline. The shape of the data is similar to the DCVG prole as shown in Figure 35. The A-Frame takes measurements so that one electrode touches the ground over the pipeline and the other touches the ground at the same lengthwise location over a parallel imaginary line 31.5 inches away from the pipeline. 3.3.4 Current Attenuation This technique is also simulated using CP3D. However, the use of the nodes of the soil surface are not needed for this calculation. This calculation takes advantage of CP3Ds ability to calculate current distributions along the pipeline. For example, the total current entering the pipeline is calculated in Amps by the mathematical model of CP3D. Also, the total amount of current specically entering the pipeline at the coating aw is calculated automatically. Using this information, current attenuation is calculated in both mA and in percent. The calculation in mA is done by taking the value given for the amount of current entering the pipeline and multiplying it by 1000 to give it units of mV. In order to calculate current attenuation in percent, the amount of current entering the pipeline specically at the coating aw is divided by the total amount of current entering the pipeline. This value is then multiplied by 100 in order to make it a true percentage.

40 3.4 CP3D settings For these simulations the CP3D system was only run under impressed current mode and not under sacricial anode. One reason for this is because cathodic protection of large scale pipelines normally use impressed current anodes. Also, in real eld surveys CP current usually must be interrupted in order to get the dierence between on- and o-potentials. A CP system with a sacricial anode can not be controlled in this way. The pipelines length was 10 miles for all simulations with a connection to a single anode. The anode was placed at 10,000 feet from one end of the pipeline in the direction towards the other end so that it was almost directly under the pipeline. The anode was placed 1,000 feet deep with a vertical orientation. This depth was specied at such a large depth in order to supply a more uniform distribution of current to the pipeline. The size of the anode was 2.5 feet wide and 200 feet long. The coating aw was placed almost exactly in the middle of the pipeline. The coating parameters that were used were for an excellent coating. The thickness of the coating was 20 mils. The coating resistivity was 109 ohm-cm. The oxygen blocking was at 95 percent and the oxygen limiting current for reduction was set at 10 mA per square feet. 3.4.1 Matrix of Simulations Table 31 is included to show which parameters were varied in the simulation runs. The column for CP level is based on soil surface o-potential values that are far away from the pipeline and the coating aw. For example, for low CP level, a soil surface o-potential was desired to reach between -700 mV and -799 mV. In order to achieve such an o-potential, the anode voltage would have to be adjusted. The medium CP level was for values between -900mV and -999mV and the high CP level was for values between -1100mV and -1199mV.

41

Table 31: The matrix of model runs showing the ranges of dierent parameters that were varied. aw size (in2 ) Rs (k-cm) DOC (ft) Dp (in) CP level (mV) 1 0.5 4 6 -700 16 3 8 12 -900 10 16 48 -1100 36 64 50 100 100 1000

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND TRENDS 4.1 Current and Potential Distributions in the Pipeline The current from an impressed current CP system travels from the anode to the pipeline through the soil. Once it reaches the pipeline it returns to the anode through the low resistance wire. Then it returns to the anode and repeats the cycle. The following gures and discussion involve using multiple graphs to explain and reiterate that the behavior of the current in the pipeline is largely based on its tendency to return to the anode. Much information can be learned about some of the basics of a cathodic protection system by studying the current and potential distributions along the pipeline. If eld surveyors understand more about the behavior of the pipeline current then they will be able to maintain a better balance between excessive CP and inadequate CP. Excessive CP can cause the potential along the pipeline to become too negative. When the potential becomes too polarized or too negative, the hydrogen evolution reaction plays a larger role. Once excessive current is supplied to the pipeline, the hydrogen ions present in the soil will begin to reduce to form hydrogen. However, too much of the evolved hydrogen will damage the pipeline through embrittlement. Conversely, too little CP can cause the pipe to be left unprotected. These distributions of the current and potential can help explain the behavior of the current in the pipeline and whether the CP is working properly. The eectiveness of the CP current can be rst evaluated by Figure 41 as it represents the cathodic current density distribution along the length of the pipeline. The values are negative because the current is cathodic. Therefore, the values with the largest magnitude of current are the ones that are most negative. It is of 42

43

-0.0092 current density (mA/sq ft) -0.0112 -0.0132 -0.0152 -0.0172 -0.0192 0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04 4.0E+04 5.0E+04

distance along pipeline (ft)


Figure 41: A plot of current density as it changes along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp interest in Figure 41 that the largest magnitude of current according to the graph is located at the negative dip around 10,000 feet. This is due to the location of the anode and the fact that the current is travelling along the pipeline in the direction of the bond between the pipeline and anode. The rectier applies a voltage drop which is the driving force for the current to return from the pipe to the anode. The magnitude of current also shows an increase near the pipe ends which is due to the geometry of the rounded edges. The last feature to mention about Figure 41 is the behavior of the current at the coating aw. The aw is located in the middle of the pipeline which means that it is placed halfway along the length of the pipeline. Therefore, this feature of the graph due to the coating aw is shown in the very center of the x-axis. This peak at the middle of the x-axis of Figure 41 represents the location of the coating aw. The values of the current density are much lower here than all of the other locations along the pipeline. This can be misleading

44
0 current density (mA/sq ft) -40 -80 -120 -160 -200 0 60 120 180 240 300 360

degrees from top of pipe


Figure 42: An angular plot of current density at the location of the coating aw. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp because the magnitude of cathodic current is actually greatest at the coating aw. Values over the aw are actually as large as 120 mA/sq ft for this given simulation. However, the values that are plotted on this graph are actually for the coated area near the pipe. These values are very small because they are very close to the coating aw, which is consuming almost all of the local cathodic current. This is called a draw down in current near the coating aw. By creating an axial plot such as Figure 41, the values of current density over the coating aw are not included. In order to include these points, an angular plot must be generated. In Figure 42, the locations of 0 degrees and 360 degrees represent the top of the pipeline where the coating aw is located. Notice that the coating aw is now included by the large magnitude of current that is present making all other points negligible on this plot. These negligible points represent where the coating is present. Notice that there are a lot of points in the axial plot around the location of the coating aw. This is also true for the locations at the ends of the pipe and at the

45

-1.6E+03

potential (mV)

-1.8E+03

-2.0E+03

-2.2E+03 0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04 4.0E+04 5.0E+04

distance along pipeline (ft)


Figure 43: A plot of soil surface on-potentials as they change along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp connection to the anode. These extra points are included automatically by CP3D because they are located where conditions change. For example, at the coating aw the condition is changing from a coated pipe to an bare pipe. Therefore, in order to get an accurate picture of current and voltage distributions, more nodes or points are used at these locations where changes in the pipeline are present. The ow of current along the pipeline can also be illustrated by the magnitude of current values given in Figure 41. It is known that as the current enters the pipeline at a given location that it will begin to ow towards the connection with the anode. This can be proven by noticing that the magnitude of current is larger at locations closer to the anode. Note that in this graph by looking from right to left that the shape slopes downward. This downward slope represents an increase in the magnitude of current towards the pipelines connection with the anode.

46

150

110

potential (mV)

70

30

-10 0.0E+00

1.0E+04

2.0E+04

3.0E+04

4.0E+04

5.0E+04

distance along pipeline (ft)


Figure 44: A plot of steel voltage as it changes along the length of the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in aw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp The distribution of potential is very similar to that of the current in terms of its shape as shown in Figure 43. More protected regions are shown as those which display a more negative potential. The potentials near the bond to the anode are the most negative which makes since because Figure 41 showed that this location had the greatest magnitude of current. The behavior of current is also consistent as current should ow from positive potentials to negative potentials. This is found to be true as the values of potentials become more negative as they reach the bond of the pipeline with the anode. Another plot shown in Figure 44 gives a representation of steel voltage along the length of the pipeline. This value of potential is based on the potential at a given location along the pipeline referenced to the potential at one of the ends of the pipeline. By looking at this pipe the behavior of the current also is represented as owing towards the bond with the anode. The location of the coating aw can

47
0.00 -0.01
10 k cm

50 k cm 30 k cm

-0.02

i (mA/ft )

-0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 0.E+00

3 k cm

0.5 k cm

1.E+04

2.E+04

3.E+04

4.E+04

5.E+04

6.E+04

location along pipe (feet)


Figure 45: Current distribution along the pipeline is shown for changing soil resistivities. be identied as the location in the middle of the plot where a high concentration of data points are included. The graph shows a linear behavior at this location. An additional set of simulations were run in order to help further understand the behavior of current if the soil resistivity was increased. The coating defect was taken o the pipeline in order to simplify this behavior. These simulations were done separately from the previous data showing current and potential distributions along the pipeline. For this set of simulations, the anode was placed in the middle of a ten mile pipeline with no defect present. The anode voltage was set a constant value of 5 Volts. The anode was moved to the middle of the pipeline so that it could be ensured that the distribution was symmetric. Again, the magnitude of current is largest at the location of the bond to the anode as shown in Figure 45. Figure 45 also shows that the magnitude of the current also increases towards the ends of the pipeline as shown in previous distributions.

48 Dierent soil resistivities were used to help understand the eect of soil resistivity on CP current. This graph shows the basic trend that as soil resistivity increases the magnitude of current decreases. This is due to the fact that the current has an increased diculty of reaching the pipeline if the soil resistivity is high. Increased soil resistivity means that the conductivity of the soil is decreased. Therefore, if the soil resistivity is high, the pipeline will receive less current and this could cause the pipeline to be under protected. This allows the argument to be made that soil resistivity is very important. The soil resistivity should be known in order to make a decision on the level of CP to be used. This is because a normal CP level that may be high for a low soil resistivity will probably insucient for a high soil resistivity. 4.2 Trends from Simulation Results The eect of soil resistivity and coating aw (holiday) size on the value of calculated indications was rst explored using CP3D simulation results. Figure 46 was developed to show the correlation between DCVG indication in mV versus aw size based on changing soil resistivities. There are two main trends that are found from Figure 46. One trend is that DCVG indications in mV will increase with increasing aw size, which is consistent with conventional knowledge. The other trend found is that as soil resistivity increases the DCVG indication decreases. This trend is a result that was not initially expected. Since these are competing trends it is of interest to determine which trend has a more dominating eect on indications. By taking a closer look at Figure 46, it appears that the soil resistivity plays are a larger role than aw size in determining DCVG indication in mV. This is supported by the behavior at high soil resistivities where the DCVG indications show almost no dependence on aw size. Conversely, there is a wide distribution of DCVG indications at low soil resistivities. This result shows that prioritization of DCVG indications in mV can be much improved by taking soil resistivity into account.

49

100 80

flaw size (in )

60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.5K 3K 10K 50K 100K

voltage gradient (mV)


Figure 46: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode voltage: 5V DCVG indications were converted to percent-IR as shown in Figure 4 7. This plot also shows the eect of soil resistivity and aw size on indication except that it is for DCVG indications in percent-IR. In this case, the percentIR calculations were made by scaling by the IR drop over the coating aw. The results show that percent-IR indication increases both with increasing coating aw size and increasing soil resistivity. This plot also shows that soil resistivity can have a greater eect on percent-IR values than aw size. For example, for each soil resistivity, the relative change of indications stays the same. This means that as aw size changes, the percent-IR indication changes by the exact same incremental value regardless of of what soil resistivity that the system is at. This result shows that percent-IR indications can also be better prioritized by taking soil resistivity into account. In other words, the percent-IR indications obtained could be misinterpreted causing an inaccurate prediction of the coating aw size if the

50

100 80

flaw size (in )

60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80

0.5K 3K 10K 50K 100K

100

percent-IR
Figure 47: DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode voltage: 5V soil resistivity is not known or included in evaluations. For example, in Figure 47, a large percent-IR value could be due to a high soil resistivity and not necessarily a large coating aw size. In Figure 48, the eect of changing CP levels is explored on DCVG indications in mV. The CP level was adjusted by increasing the anode voltage and CP levels were categorized by ensuring that o potentials on the soil surface far away from the coating aw reached certain ranges. Figure 48 also shows that DCVG indications increase with increasing coating aw size as previously found. However, this graph is primarily included to show that increased CP has a large eect on DCVG signal in mV. Notice that the distribution in voltage gradients in Figure 48 is much improved at larger CP levels. These larger voltage gradients at higher CP levels can be explained by a larger amount of current entering the pipeline at the aw location. This shows that at lower CP levels, the presence of a aw size could

51

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60
high CP med CP low CP

voltage gradient (mV)


Figure 48: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as CP level is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft be undetected. Therefore, the severity of a aw could be misinterpreted if CP level is not taken into account. A sucient amount of CP current is needed in order to yield a measurable voltage gradient. DCVG in percent-IR was also plotted exactly as done in Figure 48. This is shown in Figure 49. The obvious result shown here is that the percent-IR values do not change with increased CP level. This result could be helpful in predicting aw size based on DCVG indications in percent-IR. Sensitivity of indications of DCVG in mV are also evaluated based on changing depth of cover as shown in Figure 410. From this plot it is shown that DCVG indications are more sensitive to a pipeline that is buried at four feet than at eight feet. Although not shown here, previous simulations have further supported this trend where indications at larger depths of cover are practically negligible. This trend indicates that depth of cover should be used in prioritizing indications. For the similar conditions in Figure 410, a plot of DCVG indication in mV is given

52

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40
high CP

20 0 0 5 10 15 20

med CP low CP

25

percent-IR
Figure 49: DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus aw size as CP level is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40
4ft DOC

20 0 0 20 40

8ft DOC

60

voltage gradient (mV)


Figure 410: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as DOC is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, CP level: high

53

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60
12in OD 48in OD 6in OD

voltage gradient (mV)


Figure 411: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as Dp is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, DOC: 4in, CP level: high versus changing pipe diameter. There is no clear trend found from this result as shown in Figure 411. However, this result is taken with great caution since there is no justiable evidence to prove that pipe diameter does not have an eect on DCVG indication in mV. CIS on-potential dip (on-dip) indications are plotted against aw size based on changing soil resistivity in Figure 412. One basic trend shows that CIS on-dip indication increases with increasing aw (holiday) size. Another trend shown is that the CIS on-dips increase as soil resistivity increases. However, this result should be considered with caution due to the changing of the anode voltage. The anode voltage was changed for each simulation to maintain a certain level (high) of CP. The anode voltage was increased as soil resistivity increased to maintain a certain range (-1150mV) of soil surface o potentials far away from the aw. This same result is also shown for DCVG indications given in Figure 413. Note that the DCVG trend in mV for Figure 413 is dierent than it was in Figure 46. This

54

100 80

flaw size (sq in)

60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250


3K 10K 50K 100K

potential (mV)
Figure 412: CIS on-potential dip indication is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high is because in Figure 46, the anode voltage was held constant for all runs. This indicates that increased CP level increases the DCVG indication found even if soil resistivity is also increased. Figure 414 is based on data from the same simulations run in Figure 412. However, it shows a dierent result for some soil resistivities. The negative CIS odips initially represented an area of concern. The on- and o-potential proles are given for a simulation that gives a negative CIS o-dip in Figure 415. A general potential prole represents current direction by moving from positive to negative potentials. In Figure 415, the on-potential prole shows that current is entering the pipeline at the coating aw and then it travels away from the aw based on the prole of on-potentials moving from positive to negative. This is normally expected to be found for CIS o dips as well. However, the negative CIS o-dip indicates

55

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80
3K 10K 50K 100K

voltage gradient (mV)


Figure 413: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high that when the CP current is turned o that the potential ows back towards the aw. This can be attributed to the pipeline being substantially over protected underneath the coating than it is at the aw. This is justied to occur at low soil resistivities because the coating resistance is so much higher than the resistance of the soil when the soil resistivities are low. Another way to prioritize CIS indications is to calculate the dips in potential to determine the relative size of the coating. From simulation data it can be shown that the size of the dip has a direct correlation with the size of the aw. This result is shown in Figure 416. This trend shows that the magnitude of the dip increases with increasing size of the coating aw. Current attenuation plots are also included in both mA and percent. Figure 417 shows that as soil resistivity increases that the Current attenuation decreases. This makes sense because less current is able to get to the aw at higher soil

56

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100


3K 10K 50K 100K

flaw size (sq in)

potential (mV)
Figure 414: CIS o-potential dip indication is plotted versus aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high

-1

potential (V)

-1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 7910


On Potential Off Potential

7920

7930

7940

position along soil surface (m)


Figure 415: A prole of soil surface on- and o-potentials from a simulated CIS survey. Simulation parameters are aw size: 36 in2 , Rs: 500ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high

57

-1.52 -1.54

potential (V)

-1.56 -1.58 -1.6 -1.62 7910

1 sq in 36 sq in 100 sq in

7915

7920

7925

7930

7935

7940

position along soil surface (m)


Figure 416: A representation of soil surface on-potential proles taken along the length of the pipeline. The anode voltage is held constant for each simulation. resistivities. However, even with the anode voltage being adjusted for each of these data points, the soil resistivity dominates. A similar trend is shown for current attenuation in percent. Note that the percentages are all very low. This can be attributed to the ratio of the area of aw size to the area of the pipeline. 4.3 Flaw Size Predictors 4.3.1 CIS Predictor All simulation data results were used to predict aw size based on CIS indications. The simulation data used involve variations in CP level, pipe diameter, depth of cover, and soil resistivity. The objective was to develop a formula that predicts aw size through use of the CIS dip indications given as: aw size = m(CISondip CISo dip ) (4.1)

58

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
3K 10K 50K 100K 1000K

Indication (mA)
Figure 417: Current attenuation in mA is plotted against aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high Table 41: Three simulations dierent only in CP level. Parameters are 12in Dp, 4ft DOC, and 0.5 kohm-cm (soil resistivity) CP level aw size (in2 ) 1 -1152mV (high) 16 -951mV (medium) -757mV (low) 36 (A) CIS dip 14.95 1.67 0.61 (B) IRtotal 0.707 0.0789 0.0288 (A) divided by (B) 21.15 21.15 21.15

where m is a function of CP level, pipe diameter, depth of cover, and soil resistivity. Figure 419 shows all simulation data of CIS indication data as aw size changes. The CIS indication shown represents the dierence in the on-potential dip and the o-potential dip. One by one each parameter was incorporated into the expression for m in equation (4.1). The rst parameter studied was CP level. Each simulation was run at CP levels of high, medium, and low. Figure 420 gives a general representation of on- and o-potential proles. It was found that the IR drop far away from the aw (but still above the pipeline) could be used to help

59

100

flaw size (sq in)

80 60 40 20 0 0.00
3K 10K 50K 100K 1000K

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Indication (%)
Figure 418: Current attenuation in percent is plotted against aw size as soil resistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high neglect CP level from the expression for m. In Table (41), data for three dierent simulations are shown whose only dierence is in CP level. Notice that there is a dierent CIS indication for each simulation in Table (41). However, by dividing by IR total (which is illustrated in Figure (420)), an identical value is obtained for each simulation. Therefore, the total number of simulations used in the calculation for the aw size predictor can be divided by three. The last column in Table (41) is now multiplied by 100 to make it a percentage and then plotted against the square root of the aw size. The square root of aw size was used in order to get a value that exhibits the same qualities of a characteristic radius. This plot is given if Figure (421). A plot similar to Figure (421) was created for each dierent combination of soil resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter. However, in contrast to Figure (421), a near perfect linear t was found for each of these combinations. The

60

140

CIS Indication (mV)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

flaw size (sq in)


Figure 419: A plot of CIS indications versus aw size from simulation data. CIS indication is the dierence in the on-potential dip and the o-potential dip.

Figure 420: A prole of general behavior of on- and o-potentials along the centerline at the soil surface.

61

20.0 CIS Indication / IR total

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

flaw size1/2 (in1/2)


Figure 421: A plot of CIS indication divided by IR total versus the square root of the aw size. The denition of IR total is illustrated in Figure (4-20). dierent slopes found (one for each combination) were then plotted against soil resistivity for each combination of pipe diameter and depth of cover. A near perfect exponential t was found for each. An example of this is shown in Figure (422). For each of these plots a pre-exponential factor was calculated and an exponential term was calculated. The dierent pre-exponential factors were then plotted versus depth of cover and pipe diameter separately. No relationship was found between the pre-exponential factor and the pipe diameter. However, a linear t was found between the pre-exponential factor and depth of cover as shown in Figure (423). Now, an expression for m can be used to predict aw size as m = A exp(aRs ) where A is the function found from Figure (423), a is the average of all of the exponential terms from the dierent plots similar to Figure (422), and Rs is soil (4.2)

62

3.5 3 2.5
y = 2.8897e-0.001x R2 = 0.9995

slope

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

soil resistivity (kohm-cm)


Figure 422: An exponential plot of slope versus soil resistivity. Data was at a depth of cover of 4ft and a pipe diameter of 6 inches.

4
y = -0.59233x + 5.43851 2 R = 0.98998

pre-exponent

0 0 2 4 6 8 10

depth of cover (ft)


Figure 423: A plot of pre-exponential factors versus the corresponding depth of cover.

63

120

Predicted flaw size (sq in)

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Actual flaw size (sq in)


Figure 424: Actual aw size is plotted versus predicted aw size for each simulation using the derived expression for m. resistivity. The expression for the pre-exponential factor is A = 0.5923DOC + 5.4385 (4.3)

Now that an expression for m is known, it is plugged into equation (4.1) to solve for aw size for each simulation. A plot of aw size versus predicted aw size is shown in Figure (424). Good agreement is shown in the graph evidenced by a high R2 value of 0.986. In order for the predictor to be used the soil resistivity and depth of cover must be known. Then by using CIS on- and o-dip indications as well as the IR total value illustrated in Figure (420), the aw size can be predicted. 4.3.2 DCVG Predictor Similar development was used to predict aw size based on DCVG indications. While the CIS predictor was based on IR drops far away from the coating aw but

64

160

Predicted flaw size (sq in)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Actual flaw size (sq in)


Figure 425: Actual aw size is plotted versus predicted aw size for each simulation using DCVG indications. along the pipeline, the DCVG predictor used IR drops far away from the coating aw but in the direction away from the pipeline towards remote earth. In order for the predictor to be used the soil resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter must be known. Figure (36) shows the percent-IR calculation which is similar to the information needed for the DCVG predictor to work. Assuming that point D is at remote earth in Figure (36), the voltage gradient between point A and D must be found. This same voltage gradient must also be used but at a location further down the pipeline so that it is not near the coating aw. Also the IR drop at remote earth (point D) must be used to complete the information needed to calculate aw size. In Figure (425), a condence interval is given as represented by the dashed lines. This is used to show that the DCVG predictor is not predicting an exact coating aw size but instead a range in which the coating aw size should be in. The same was done for the CIS predictor in Figure (424).

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 5.1 Conclusions Several trends were found addressing the sensitivity of the dierent aboveground techniques under variation of many parameters. DCVG in mV was the rst measurement technique explored in this work. As expected, it was found that DCVG indications increase with increasing coating aw size. However, a more interesting result showed that increased soil resistivity caused DCVG indications in mV to decrease. In fact, it was found that soil resistivity has an even larger eect on DCVG indications than the size of the coating aw. Also found was that increased anode voltage causes DCVG indications to increase. This is explained by a larger amount of current entering the pipeline at the coating defect. The eect of parameters such as depth of cover and pipe diameter on DCVG indications were also explored. It was found that DCVG indications decrease as depth of cover increases. There was no relationship established regarding the sensitivity of DCVG in mV with pipe diameter. Trends and relationships were also found for DCVG indications converted to percent-IR. Percent-IR values increased with both increasing coating aw size and soil resistivity. From these results it was found that the evaluation of percent-IR values should not exclude consideration of soil resistivity. For example, a high soil resistivity could cause a small defect to yield a large percent-IR value leading to unnecessary excavation. Also, most of the large coating aws (100 sq in) had low percent-IR values that under normal evaluations would be as minimal threat to potential corrosion failure. This further proves that percent-IR values are not

65

66 enough to make a decision on whether a defect is severe or not. The level of soil resistivity among other factors must also be incorporated into this assessment. The Close Interval Survey (CIS) showed similar results to DCVG in mV in that larger prole dips were found with increased coating aw size. After all of the required simulations were completed, CIS results were able to be used to predict a given aw size based on indications and known pipeline parameters. This development proved that CIS indications as well as DCVG indications do not give enough information alone to make assessments about aw size. This is shown in Figure (419), where there is a substantial amount of scatter in the data between CIS indications and aw size. No conclusion or assessment about the size of the aw can be made using the CIS indications calculated. However, this development showed that by knowing more about other parameters of the system (such as soil resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter), a quantitative relationship can be made between CIS indications and coating aw size. Overall, the predictor for CIS showed very good agreement between actual aw size and predicted aw size. A similar method was used to predict aw size using DCVG indications, but the condence interval was much larger than that of the CIS predictor. 5.2 Future Work Most importantly, the quantitative results of this work need to be tested. Now that coating aw size predictors have been developed using the CP3D simulation model, they need to be tested in eld surveys. A condence interval has already been established from the results. However, it is expected that the design equations used to predict aw size may need to be adjusted slightly by some factor after initial results. As for ways to improve the current work, a model predictor needs to be obtained involving Current Attenuation surveys similar to that of the CIS and DCVG aw size predictors. In some cases it may be easier to run a survey involving current attenuation instead of CIS or DCVG. Therefore, a

67 design equation needs to be developed that can predict aw size based on current attenuation indications. While this work has incorporated variances in many dierent parameters of the pipeline and its environment, more simulations need to be run to improve the understanding of the behavior of a pipeline with a bad coating. This work up until now involves assessments using coatings in excellent condition. Therefore, an extension of this work would be to cover areas that we have not explored yet such as coatings in medium or bad condition. Bad coatings can cause issues for aboveground measurement techniques due to the possibility that corroded areas of the pipeline may be undetected. This can occur because the CP current is so widely distributed that there is not enough localized current entering the pipeline at a corroded or bare location. This causes indications from measurement techniques to not be large enough to detect bare spots on the coating. For example, voltage gradients in the ground will not arise if there is not a large enough ow of localized current entering the pipeline at a given location. Characterization of this behavior needs further development using CP3D simulations. Another issue to be explored is of CP systems involving multiple pipelines and/or multiple anodes. Underground spacing between pipelines continues to decrease everyday as more pipelines are installed. This can cause some pipelines to interfere with the CP current intended for nearby pipelines. This can also lead to insucient protection of some pipelines causing a legitimate concern. CP3D has the ability to create an environment with multiple pipelines and multiple anodes which could lead to a better understanding of how CP current systems should be implemented in close proximity. This type of study could also incorporate the use of using both impressed current anodes as well as sacricial anodes. Contributions of the dierent anodes could be dierentiated to understand at what locations and settings they will work best.

REFERENCES [1] E. W. Klechka, Pipeline integrity management and corrosion control, Materials Performance, vol. 41, pp. 2427, June 2002. [2] D. H. Kroon, External corrosion direct assessment of buried pipelines: The process, Materials Performance, vol. 42, pp. 2832, June 2003. [3] M. McQueen, W. Burks, V. Wallace, and R. Hicks, A quantitative probabilistic approach to external corrosion direct assessment using structural reliability analysis, in NACE 2003 Conference, 2003. [4] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0502-2002, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology, NACE International, Houston, TX, 2002. [5] NACE Task Group 041, preliminary document, March 2002. [6] J. Medina, A. Kowalski, and E. Cordova, Reliable eld data acquisition, a key factor in ecda methodology, in NACE 2004 Conference, 2004. [7] D. A. Ersoy and K. G. Leewis, Assessing external corrosion, Pipeline and Gas Technology, vol. 3, pp. 1821, March 2004. [8] A. Francis, P. Geren, and B. Phillips, New method helps operators assess line integrity, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 99, pp. 16, November 2001. [9] J. Morgan, Cathodic Protection, NACE International, Houston, TX, second edition, 1993. [10] M. G. Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, third edition, 1986. [11] D. Jones, Principles and Prevention of Corrosion, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, second edition, 1996. [12] S. K. Brubaker, Process Industries Corrosion, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1986. [13] S. K. Coburn and Y-W. Kim, Metals Handbook, ASM International, Metals Park, OH, 1987. [14] K. N. Allahar, Mathematical Modeling of Disbonded Coating and Cathodic Delamination Systems, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 2003.

68

69 [15] N. Sridhar, Metals Handbook, ASM International, Metals Park, OH, 1987. [16] G. Williams and H. McMurray, Chromate inhibition of corrosion-driven organic coating delamination studied using a scanning kelvin probe technique, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 148, pp. B377B385, 2001. [17] H. McMurray G. Williams, Cerium(iii) inhibition of corrosion-driven organic coating delamination studied using a scanning kelvin probe technique, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 149, pp. B154B162, 2002. [18] Gas factsdistribution and transmission miles of pipeline, Tech. Rep., American Gas Association, Washington, DC, 1999. [19] Pipeline accident summary report: Pipeline rupture, liquid butane release, and re, lively, texas august 24 1996, Tech. Rep., National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 1998. [20] J. Wagner, Cathodic Protection Design I, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1994. [21] D. P. Riemer and M. E. Orazem, Modeling coating aws with non-linear polarization curves for long pipelines, chapter 9, pp. 225257, Wessex Institute of Technology Press, 2006. [22] D. P. Riemer, Modeling Cathodic Protection for Pipeline Networks, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1999. [23] E. Mulder, A testing time, World Pipelines, vol. 3, pp. 3942, 2003. [24] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0102, In-line Inspection of Pipelines, NACE International, Houston, TX, 2002. [25] L. Manian and A. Hodgdon, Pipeline integrity assessment and management, Materials Performance, vol. 44, pp. 1822, February 2005. [26] J. B. Nestleroth, Circumferential m in-line inspection for cracks in pipelines, Tech. Rep., Battelle, June 2003. [27] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0169-96, Standard Recommended Practice-Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1996. [28] A. Francis, M. Gardiner, A. Goodfellow, M. McCallum, G. Senior, and B. Greenwood, A systematic risk and reliability-based approach to integrity management of piggable and non-piggable pipelines, in Pipeline Integrity and Safety, 2001. [29] J. Pikas and K. Leewis, Development of external corrosion direct assessment methodology, Tech. Rep., BATTELLE, June 2002.

70 [30] M. E. Orazem, J. M. Esteban, K. J. Kennelley, and R. M. Degerstedt, Mathematical models for cathodic protection of an underground pipeline with coating holidays: Part 1 - theoretical development, Corrosion, vol. 53(4), pp. 264272, 1997. [31] A. W. Peabody, Control of Pipeline Corrosion, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1978. [32] J. F. Yan, S. N. R. Pakalapati, T. V. Nguyen, R. E. White, and R. B. Grin, Mathematical modeling of cathodic protection using the boundary element method with a nonlinear polarization curve, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 139(7), pp. 19321936, 1992. [33] K. J. Kennelley, L. Bone, and M. E. Orazem, Current and potential distribution on a coated pipeline with holidays part i - model and experimental verication, Corrosion, vol. 49(3), pp. 199210, 1999. [34] C. Coras, N. Pebere, and C. Lacabanne, Characterization of a thin protective coating on galvanized steel by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and a thermostimulated current method, Corrosion Science, vol. 41(8), pp. 15391555, 1999. [35] I. Thompson and D. Campbell, Interpreting nyquist responses from defective coatings on steel substrates, Corrosion Science, vol. 36(1), pp. 187198, 1994. [36] D. Diakow, G. Van Boven, and M. Wilmott, Polarization under disbonded coatings: Conventional and pulsed cathodic protection compared, Materials Performance, vol. 37, pp. 1723, May 1998. [37] T. R. Jack, External corrosion of line pipe - a summary of research activities, Materials Performance, vol. 35, pp. 1824, March 1996. [38] J. A. Beavers and N. G. Thompson, Corrosion beneath disbonded pipeline, Materials Performance, vol. 36, pp. 1319, April 1997. [39] D. Riemer and M. Orazem, Development of mathematical models of cathodic protection of multiple pipelines in a right of way, in Proceedings of the 1998 International Gas Research Conference, Chicago, 1998, p. 117, GRI, Paper TSO-19. [40] D.P. Riemer and M.E. Orazem, Cathodic protection of multiple pipelines with coating holidays, in Procedings of the NACE99 Topical Research Symposium: Cathodic Protection: Modeling and Experiment, Mark E. Orazem, Ed., Houston, TX, 1999, pp. 6581, NACE International.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH James Patrick McKinney graduated from the University of South Carolina with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering in May of 2004. While at the University of South Carolina, Patrick developed an interest in electrochemisty by working on an undergraduate research project involving the characterization of a direct methanol fuel cell and by taking an undergraduate course in corrosion engineering. He entered graduate school in August of 2004 at the University of Florida to pursue a Master of Science degree under the direction of Dr. Mark Orazem who specializes in electrochemical engineering. Patrick plans to continue to work in Dr. Orazems group upon completion of the Master of Science degree in order to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy degree.

71

Interesses relacionados